SMACKDOWN: Jared Polis Has His “Assets” Handed to Him By Investigative Reporter Peter Schweizer

We reported yesterday that Boulder Congressman Jared Polis was in trouble due to a damning ethics report on him and the likely entrance of Boulder Republican Eric Weissmann into the CD2 race. In today's Denver Post, Polis used an Op-Ed to respond to the accusations of ethical impropriety made in a book by investigative reporter Peter Schweizer called "Throw Them All Out."

And this afternoon, Schweizer struck back. Hard.

The response from Polis begins:

In Sunday’s Denver Post, a conservative commentator and adviser to Sarah Palin [Peter Schweizer] made a series of baseless charges about my finances and conduct in Congress. This person has made a lucrative cottage industry of hurling various charges at elected officials, including John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry. Gadflies have been around forever, but they usually don’t get featured in major American newspapers.

He then goes on to try to rebut some of Schweizer’s details, which Schweizer dismisses in his response.

Schweizer’s response fires back:

Congressman Jared Polis offers a remarkable display of misdirection and outright deception in his response to my book "Throw Them All Out," which was excerpted in The Denver Post.

First note what Congressman Polis is not denying: that he made multimillion dollar equity investments that stood to benefit greatly from legislation he was working on and supported. And the timing of those transactions confirms to the work he was doing on capitol hill.

The long and short of the issue is that, as Complete Colorado reported in September 2009, Congressman Polis benefited financially, in a major way, from Obamacare through investments made at opportune times based on information that Polis was privy to through his job in Congress.

You can read Schweizer's original piece on Polis's insider trading here.

And Schweizer responds back here, ending his article saying: "Far from slinging mud, my book has lead to a movement for reform. Congressman Polis seems more interested in covering his “assets” than coming clean."

SMACK!

As we noted previously, with the American public sour on Congress, and crony capitalism in general, this issue could have great resonance in the campaign this year.

The fact that Congressman Polis feels the need to get into a public spat with the author on the pages of The Denver Post shows you he knows how damaging the information can be to him.

If this keeps up we may be talking about a Congressman Weissmann by next year.

Does Schweizer have a bias? Yes, just like 99.9% of reporters, scholars, and people. You conveniently omit that he is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford to fit your agenda. Schweizer also goes after Judd Gregg and John Boehner just as he goes after Nancy Pelosi and Jared Polis. This is what seperates him from the Moores, Maddows, et al of the world. They do not attack their political allies in this fashion.

You get a pass for being off-topic, but do you believe the actions of Polis (and for that matter, everyone else Schweizer mentions) consitute insider trading? In other words, if you and I committed these actions, would we be sitting in Leavenworth? Yes or no?

Being an accomplished intellectual does not mean that someone won’t throw over the rules of fair academic study when the opportunity to make a lot of money presents itself. It’s called “selling out.”

And let’s keep in mind the troubles Gregg and Boehner have with the purity police of the right – wake me when he’s criticizing the Koch brothers. But, if that distinction matters to you, we should be fair and note that Moore et al routinely criticized Clinton and Obama, among others. So by your standard, they’re once again on the same level.

I still maintain that the word of this man Schweitzer is far from convincing. If you follow my link, you’ll see specific criticisms (and his weak response) of his “scholarship.” So proceeding straight to your latter question is premature – it’s not established that Polis has done anything of the sort. (It is, of course, possible, but that’s not good enough.)

BTW, going truly off topic for a moment… what do you think about Peak’s silence regarding Rep. Bradford?

Moore, Olbermann and that crowd (not familiar w/ Maddow) attack Obama and Clinton and other Dems on policy and ideological grounds. On the other side, Gregg and Boehner are also attacked on the same grounds by conservative commentators. Moore and Olbermann don’t go after Dems for unethical behavior, real or perceived, like Schweizer does to GOP congressmen. For instance, Moore frames it like the NRA bought off the GOP, when they in fact give a lot of money to Blue Dog Dems too, he just leaves that part out.

I’m sure the Peak will cover the Bradford story when more facts are in and if it’s warranted. Admittedly, I’m not up to date on what happened today, but did hear she addressed the house, which is a good step. I don’t think she should resign, simply because they would have to appoint a replacement to serve out 9 months (less by the time it’s official), which is costly and unnecessary. She shouldn’t seek re-election IMHO

and if Schweizer’s claims end up being corroborated, I will come here and not only admit it, but go on to say that he’ll be one ideologue who I will take seriously in the future.

Going on to Bradford, I mentioned it because Peak is quick to post diaries “before all the facts are in” when the subject is an elected Democrat. In the case of a Republican, where the known facts are already pretty bad (and appears to be getting worse), it looks like Peak is waiting until Bradford’s position is untenable and the party chieftans no longer support her.

that a lot of these pundits (Olbermann and Maddow at least) DID call on William Jefferson and Eliot Spitzer to resign when it came out that they were breaking the law. It happened much more quickly than, for example, I remember anyone on the right (pundit or elected official) calling for Duke Cunningham’s resignation, and his crimes were much more damaging to the public trust.

That doesn’t alter anything here, but it you believe left wing pundits never criticize their own for corruption (as opposed to ideological purity), it’s something to think about.

is we’re comparing apples and oranges in some respects. It doesn’t take much political courage to call on Client 13 or the guy with $100,000 in bribes in his freezer to resign. I can’t recall the timelines of who called upon who to resign, but it’s not as relevant. I would submit James O’Keefe as more of a “partisan hack” along the lines of Olbermann and especially Moore. Schweizer isn’t out digging around trying to smear Pelosi, Boehner or Polis (to my knowledge); he’s writing about a perceived problem and looking into whether there is validity to these claims. Look, Obama wouldn’t have addressed it in his SOTU if there wasn’t a public perception.

Anyway, it sounds like Bradford explicitly asked NOT to receive special treatment. Not sure what your thoughts are Aristotle?

about the significance of Peak’s silence. It’s one thing to be a right wing blog, but completely ignoring the biggest story in Colorado politics is a strong indication that Peak isn’t independent. Given all the grief Pols gets about who is supposedly pulling the strings there, including in diaries authored and published by Peak, it’s a relevant concern here.